To what extent do communists/socialists want to abolish private properties?

Socialists distinguish personal possessions from productive property. Productive property consists of things that are used in the system of social production to produce goods and services for others.

Personal possessions are things an individual or household use for their own purposes.

Socialism aims at putting an end to the class system. Within capitalism the class regime is based on a relative monopolization over the non-human land, equipment and so on used in social production — production of goods and services for others. The ability of individuals/private firms to monopolize control over the nonhuman means of production is the basis of the subordinate and oppressed situation of the working class majority.

Hence socialism aims to shift to “democratic worker and community control” over these non-human means of production used in social production. The idea is for worker management of the industries with democratic social accountability to the masses in regard to what is produced and effects on the masses such as pollution or emissions.

But there is no reason for personal possessions to not continue to be personal possessions since they are not the basis of a system of class domination.

We can also say that state ownership of the non-human means of production also ends up being the basis of a regime of class oppression & exploitation, as under the Soviet Union.

Dwellings might or might not be regarded as personal possessions. Under capitalism profit taking from sale of dwellings ends up causing speculative runups in housing costs to residents. There can be relative concentrations of ownership of dwellings, as by landlords. In that case dwellings become a way for capitalists to make profits. But there could be a system of personal household control over dwellings in socialism as long as this didn’t allow profiteering from speculative sales and re-sales.

Socialism and property

By definition socialism precludes private property in the means of production, so socialists aim to abolish all or most private property and replace it with public or collective property.

The goal of socialists is to create an economy where the net product and benefits resulting from the social means of production directly benefit all of society as opposed to a class of private owners, which is what “social ownership” refers to. Socialists aim to establish social ownership over the social means of production, which refers to capital goods that require collective effort to operate (an oil tanker and oil refinery would be an example of social means of production – they are not owned as personal possessions but are tools used collectively to produce property income for an owner). As others have pointed out, personal possessions and personal property is a distinct concept from private property: a car used for personal use would be an example of personal property.

There is of course a myriad of different proposals for how a socialist economy would operate and to what extent private property should be replaced with public/collective property. In most cases private property is permitted to exist on the periphery of the socially-owned and operated economy with the expectation that it will eventually die out as the necessity for private ownership of productive assets becomes moot in a socialist economy. One point I would like to add that most socialists fail to mention is that private property would only recede if the socially-owned economy is objectively superior to the remaining private sector, otherwise you will witness a resurgent growth of the private sector (or even a “third way” cooperative sector) and the need for private property.

Communism and property

Communism in the Marxist sense is a hypothetical stage of social development where material superabundance renders the concept of property moot along with money, so in a communist society it would make more sense to talk about “usership” rights and jurisdictions rather than property rights because even if an object is possessed by an individual or group of people it cannot be property in the sense of capital as the dynamic of capital accumulation, and thus there is no ability to derive an income by simply owning , using or possessing an object (nor would there be any need to in such a society).

Will I be able to own a home? Or at least clothes? If allowed, will I be allowed to trade with them?

So to answer your original question, as per the definition of private property given above, clothes and houses constitute “personal property” and not “private property in the means of production” so yes, you would be able to own and trade these possessions in a socialist economy. Secondary markets for used consumer goods would continue to exist and cannot be done away with until an alternative renders them irrelevant (such as a communist economy enabling free access to the basic articles of consumption which takes away the need to buy or even want to sell used consumer goods).

  1. Communists and most of socialists want to abolish private property on natural monopolies. Example: Land, infrastructure, power, utilities everything that that monopoly or essential for economy. After that, depends of opinions it differ.

Basically no one want to abolish personal property – meaning property person used and does not used as means of production.

After that opinions differ, depends on what kind of communist and socialist you will talk about. I consider myself anarcho-socialist so:

Anarcho socialist believe that all from point 1 should become run by worker cooperatives. Everything essential should be run democratically by people working and using this facilities. Please note, not become government property, but local, direct democracy property.

On other hand we have no objections by anyone own and run any luxury producing industry, everything people or economy does not need to function, but people my want by whatever reason. It can even been in hand of capitalist for all we care, but we do not believe that capitalist will have much luck of finding workers after collecting worker cooperative industries become norm. Who will want to give freedom by taking part in running company you working for for blind obedience of capitalist hierarchic company. But some people will still will not be bother to take part in running collective company so, who are we to tell them not to hire them self to capitalist company? We want to give individual as mach freedom as possible.

Very much so. First off, this attempt by some to differentiate between personal private property and productive private property is ludicrous. Socialists don’t see a difference between the two.

Stalin, Lenin, and Mao had no problem with taking private personal property and treating it just the same as business/productive property. In the USSR as well as China, they took, collectivization was their term, farms and forced them into larger farm units driven by the dictates of government entities. 99% of these farms that were collectivized were the farms and homes of individual families that employed no one but their family. These farms were owned by the family and employed no outside workers. These farms were taken in spite of the fact that they did not employ any outside labor. There was no labor to lord over like the greedy capitalists that they complained about, no one at all.

The argument is often attempted that socialists/communists were only interested in taking factories and other private belongings from greedy capitalists, but facts and history point otherwise.

There’s a bit of a misunderstanding here, private property refers to ‘the means of production’ which in a communist society would consist of facilities, machinery, natural resources, and tools that are used to produce or distribute goods.

Houses and personal items noticed for the creation of goods are known as ‘personal property’ and are not abolished. Houses in modern economics are known as ‘real property’ though they are also ‘personal property’ in communist society.

Since there is no money in a communist society, very little trade actually occurs.

I lived in a communist society for 14 years, in Eastern Europe. Most homes were state property. Only 5% of the population owned rheir homes. They payed rent to the government.

You could own a car. Aftr a waiting period. But first you deposited the money in a bank. The state owned the bank. You put the money in a account, let’s say 70.000 RON. Then you waited, at least 7 years, for your car to be delivered. We always had a party when someone received his car.

The clothes qere all the same. Blue jeans were not allowed. If you wanted different clothes you could wave them at home. It was not allowed to import clothes from the West.

We had few posessions. Shoes, for example, lasted for 5 years minimum. They were very expensive, at least one third of the monthly wage was the normal price for a pair of shoes.